Read more.Massive multi-core performance for £320.
Read more.Massive multi-core performance for £320.
The best Ryzen SKU so far,and just look at the power consumption!
Go!Go! Gadget Underpants!
I'll be using one of these for my next build. Excellent performance for the price and gaming performance is good enough for me even if they don't fix the SMT problem (I'm sure they will though).
I already got ym Ryzen (R7 1700x and Asus prime x370-pro) very impressed by it, great performance (coming froma i7 6700k). I need to extra power in the work i do but i also game so it is a great cpu for me, really really impressed by it.
A good chip though it's a bit of a mixed result. The 7600k beating it on Total War for a £100 pound less being the obvious point (SMT issue related). Maybe OC it until fixes come or Creative Assembly supports Ryzen in future games.
Last edited by The Hand; 14-03-2017 at 03:50 PM.
Just a heads up Hexus; in the review you're using CPU-Z 178.1 released in November 2016, however, 178.3 was released on 17 February 2017, which improved the support of the new AMD Ryzen CPUs.
Link >> http://www.cpuid.com/news/48-cpu-z-for-ryzen.html
... but a few mins entering some data and voila:
or for those who love charts;
While all the Ryzen results are good, the 7-1700 results bode well for Naples. Seems at ~3GHz or less, Ryzen is very very efficient. A 32C/64T monster like Naples is likely to be clocked at way under 3GHz so should be even more efficient than this.
This is the best CPU on the market right now!
If perf-per-watt matters enough to everyone, I'll add in our own chart.
Just had a quick scan of the review, but why no 1080P benchmarks?
From some of the reviews I saw after launch AMD were pushing for reviewers to use the QHD because the GPU becomes more of a bottleneck at these resolutions rather than the CPU, which makes sense.
If this turns out to be true, and looking at the prices:
AMD 1700 - £320
AMD 1700X - £370
i7-7700k - £336
The Intel wins on all the benchmarks still, so why would I pay more money for less punch?
You might have a combination of GPU and monitor that means your bottleneck is always going to be the GPU (e.g. 1080 @ 4k) in which case it's actually useful to know that your CPU isn't going to significantly affect your gaming experience.
You might be interested in something other than gaming? If you use heavily threaded software a lot, why would you pay more for significantly less performance (~20% in handbrake, ~ 35% in cinebench)?
I don't think anyone would recommend a Ryzen 7 for a pure gaming machine - that's not where its strength lies. There will be cheaper Ryzen CPUs that fill that slot better. However, the gaming benchmarks will still be relevant to someone whose non-gaming workloads benefit from lots of threads, but who still wants to do some gaming on their machine too.
You need to be in the small % of people that use all the cores, then the Ryzen shines and Intel looks poor value (especially the big processors that hardly any of us bought anyway). For the vast majority of us, we don't need these cores and an i5 / i7 remains the better option with faster single core performance.
I really wanted AMD to pull the rabbit out of the hat and hurt Intel but instead they have done exactly what I expected them to do and have been predicting. I expected a chip that for most (gamin) users the chip would be a little cheaper than the Intel and provide a little less power than the Intel which is exactly what they have done. They have done a great job and for specific tasks they have halfed the CPU costs, but a lot of these tasks are already using GPUs to do the number crunching too.
But at least they are back in the game, perhaps the next chips will beat Intel, we can just hope that as consumers this brings back some competition.
I really don't think you understand the position of Ryzen 7 CPUs. They're high margin parts. They're intended for prosumers, not gamers. Watch the launch presentation - or any of AMD's info presentations about Ryzen 7 - and you'll see that they make a big thing of the app performance first - gaming is almost an afterthought.
Also, remember that Ryzen isn't only trying to gain AMD market share in the desktop market. The same silicon is going in to servers, and in that market the remarkable energy efficiency that the 1700 typifies is going to make BIG waves. Server workloads tend to run 24/7, and across a huge datacentre 2 - 3 W per chip is going to be a big TCO saving. Naples will be the processor that really determines whether Zen is a financial success or not - the Ryzen SKUs are pretty much just icing on the cake...
Hey Tarinder why didnt you guys make a comment about the stock wraith cooler? I picked up a 1700 over the 1700x after finding out they clock almost identically and before I stuck it under water I tried out the stock cooler and it was damn impressive for a stock cooler! People are hitting 3.7Ghz+ no problem with the stock cooler, it really puts intel to shame and its reasonably quiet for stock as well.
Very happy with the 1700 performance, putting to 3.9ghz for me is great performance for little effort and the games look like the issues are solvable rather than hardware issues (or design flaws). Going to be a great year for consumers with the competition being present, onto vega next!
Impressive stuff, sort the scheduling issue and it will be a total winner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)